Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sebastian Pipping schrieb:
> Does sticking to dates have any real benefits?
YES - you don't have to think about another versioning scheme ;) It's
nice to see how people are switching to ${year}.${month} and after a
while discussing if it isn't better to switch back to an numerous
versioning. That's a kind of endless recursion ... isn't it?
mueli
- --
-
Michael Hammer| | Graz, AT
Gentoo Developer (Kerberos) | http://www.michael-hammer.at
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkqXhVUACgkQPsRu3xul8N5AfQCggl72KPEiszQ4GdayfMppN/0O
lvEAn1sXkhaNLr0yU2GEv/BlT1cZwzm7
=kpJt
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles
Michael Hammer wrote:
> Sebastian Pipping schrieb:
>> Does sticking to dates have any real benefits?
>
> YES - you don't have to think about another versioning scheme ;) It's
> nice to see how people are switching to ${year}.${month} and after a
> while discussing if it isn't better to switch back to an numerous
> versioning. That's a kind of endless recursion ... isn't it?
You do realize all this discussion is now pointless as 10.0 profiles are
in place already? :-p
"Bounce it back and forth for an year and get nothing done(tm)"
- Samuli
[gentoo-dev] Lastrite media-libs/{loadpng,mpeg-lib}
# Samuli Suominen (28 Aug 2009) # Orphaned libraries. Both install only a static archive # and a include file. No reverse deps. QA issues. # Masked for removal. media-libs/loadpng media-libs/mpeg-lib If you have a good reason why we need these pkgs that install only one .a and one .h with no revdeps let me know. Both can be saved easily, if there's need (need only minor patching) and/or version bumps.
[gentoo-dev] Lastrite: media-libs/rte
28 Aug 2009; Samuli Suominen package.mask: + Mask media-libs/rte for removal as it's orphaned library and ships a + modified copy of FFmpeg.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: package.mask or package.mask.d
Le dimanche 23 août 2009 à 10:24 +, Duncan a écrit : > But at three months, I'd be beginning to consider a reinstall from > stages, tho I'd probably still do the in-place upgrade. But beyond > that, > people are really only making it harder on themselves, and by six > months, It really depends on the packages you are using. I've updated machines over 6 month old period (which got to this state for whatever reason, doesn't matter) and it was just a breeze to update because there wasn't that much packages that changed in an "upgrade blocker" way. Plus all the hard work was done on the binary building machine. It would have been much longer to re-install 10+ machines. So please don't generalize your experience with fast moving packages to the tree. -- Gilles Dartiguelongue Gentoo
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles
Samuli Suominen wrote: > You do realize all this discussion is now pointless as 10.0 profiles are > in place already? :-p So what do we do? Sebastian
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Moving ssl from individual profile make.defaults to base
On Friday 31 July 2009 13:34:57 Petteri Räty wrote:
> I run:
> find /usr/portage/profiles/ -name "make.defaults" -exec grep ssl {} +
>
> It seems quite a few profiles enable ssl. To me it seems makes sense to
> enable it by default in base instead. If any profiles want it off by
> default they can start disabling it. Any objections?
do it already
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles
Sebastian Pipping wrote: > Samuli Suominen wrote: >> You do realize all this discussion is now pointless as 10.0 profiles are >> in place already? :-p > > So what do we do? > > > > Sebastian > http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-upgrading.xml signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles
Josh Saddler wrote: >> So what do we do? > > http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-upgrading.xml Please give more precise content pointers or summarize what you want to point out. Sebastian
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles
On Friday 28 August 2009 04:09:01 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Michael Hammer wrote:
> > Sebastian Pipping schrieb:
> >> Does sticking to dates have any real benefits?
> >
> > YES - you don't have to think about another versioning scheme ;) It's
> > nice to see how people are switching to ${year}.${month} and after a
> > while discussing if it isn't better to switch back to an numerous
> > versioning. That's a kind of endless recursion ... isn't it?
>
> You do realize all this discussion is now pointless as 10.0 profiles are
> in place already? :-p
10.0 is retarded
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for flag-o-matic.eclass (append-ldflags)
On Tuesday 09 December 2008 14:14:05 Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 10:33 Mon 08 Dec , Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I am seeking a positive code review on the following change to
> > flag-o-matic.eclass, diff is below (reasons are below that):
> >
> > %% cvs diff
> > Index: flag-o-matic.eclass
> > RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/eclass/flag-o-matic.eclass,v
> > retrieving revision 1.126
> > diff -u -r1.126 flag-o-matic.eclass
> > --- flag-o-matic.eclass 3 Nov 2008 05:52:39 - 1.126
> > +++ flag-o-matic.eclass 25 Nov 2008 18:36:04 -
> > @@ -417,7 +417,8 @@
> >
> >x=""
> >for x in "$@" ; do
> > - test-flag-${comp} "${x}" && flags="${flags}${flags:+
> > }${x}" + test-flag-${comp} "${x}" &&
> > flags="${flags}${flags:+ }${x}" || \ + ewarn
> > "removing ${x} because ${comp} rejected it" done
> >
> >echo "${flags}"
> > @@ -656,7 +657,7 @@
> >ewarn "Appending a library link instruction
> > (${flag}); libraries to link to should not be passed through LDFLAGS"
> >done
> >
> > - export LDFLAGS="${LDFLAGS} $*"
> > + export LDFLAGS="${LDFLAGS} $(test-flags "$@")"
> >return 0
> > }
>
> I like the consistency with other flags:
>
> comet $ grep FLAGS.*test-fl /usr/portage/eclass/flag-o-matic.eclass
> export CFLAGS=$(test-flags-CC ${CFLAGS})
> export CXXFLAGS=$(test-flags-CXX ${CXXFLAGS})
> export FFLAGS=$(test-flags-F77 ${FFLAGS})
> export FCFLAGS=$(test-flags-FC ${FCFLAGS})
your grep ignores the bigger picture. this is only in the strip-unsupported-
flag function. so while we should flesh it out to include CPPFLAGS/LDFLAGS,
it doesnt really address the original question.
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Proposal for flag-o-matic.eclass (append-ldflags)
On Sunday 14 December 2008 16:39:17 Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> > I am seeking a positive code review on the following change to
> > flag-o-matic.eclass, diff is below (reasons are below that):
>
> Er, cancel that. The proposed patch isn't robust enough to catch
> something like "append-ldflags -Wl,--bad-flag"
sounds like we need a test-flag-LD() func that can go the extra mile
> As such, we will leave
> it local to Gentoo Prefix until we can come up with a better idea.
stick it behind userland_GNU ? i dont mind extending append-ldflags in such a
way, but the "pro" you listed originally (protect users from typos in ebuilds)
isnt a pro in my book -- it should fail.
i.e. something like:
append-ldflags() {
use userland_GNU || set -- $(test-flag-LD "$@")
..
}
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo stats server/client @ 2009-08-22
Alexey Shvetsov wrote: > Hi all! > > seems smoltSendProfile doesnt work with unicode locales =) > 100%] x11-wm/twm-1.0.4 > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/smolt/client/sendProfile.py", > line 211, in > """ % excerpts > UnicodeDecodeError: 'ascii' codec can't decode byte 0xd0 in position > 0: ordinal not in range(128) Sorry I wasn't able to address this issue earlier. I have just committed a patch [1] that could fix it. Please try again with the latest HEAD and let me know how it works for you. If anyone can guide me on how to better address such errors I'm all open for it. Sebastian [1] http://git.goodpoint.de/?p=smolt-gentoo.git;a=commitdiff;h=7592c44f6eef240aaae147ba11ffe85a4156068b
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles
Mike Frysinger wrote: > 10.0 is retarded How would you like the problem to be addressed? Sebastian
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles
On Friday 28 August 2009 16:27:18 Sebastian Pipping wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > 10.0 is retarded > > How would you like the problem to be addressed? we already have a simple logical version system. 2009.0 is the next step. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Friday 28 August 2009 16:27:18 Sebastian Pipping wrote: >> Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> 10.0 is retarded >> How would you like the problem to be addressed? > > we already have a simple logical version system. 2009.0 is the > next step. -mike I think 2.0 sounds good -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkqYeagACgkQCt8MOSeAf9rNXQCePeRtsqNeh7vIhuplYx0Q57nx NdcAn3lHv8mqSxPy3MtHZkUBMnX+lsyc =rl+C -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 00:23, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Friday 28 August 2009 16:27:18 Sebastian Pipping wrote: >> Mike Frysinger wrote: >> > 10.0 is retarded >> >> How would you like the problem to be addressed? > > we already have a simple logical version system. 2009.0 is the next step. > -mike Years do not make a good versioning scheme, if one release gets out late you're automatically considered outdated by users. I think 10.0 is cool :) -- Alex || wired Gentoo Dev www.linuxized.com
[gentoo-dev] wxlib.eclass deprecation
wxlib.eclass was added years ago to consolidate code shared between all the different wx* implementations in the tree. As the number of different wx* implementations in the tree equals 1, and nothing has used this eclass in two and a half years, it will be put down. While I think it's batshit insane that we have to wait until 2011 to get rid of it, I might as well start the clock now. So if for some strange reason you were planning on using this eclass, don't. -- fonts, toolchain, Character is what you are in the dark. gcc-porting, wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles
On Friday 28 August 2009 20:05:12 Alex Alexander wrote: > On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 00:23, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Friday 28 August 2009 16:27:18 Sebastian Pipping wrote: > >> Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> > 10.0 is retarded > >> > >> How would you like the problem to be addressed? > > > > we already have a simple logical version system. 2009.0 is the next > > step. > > Years do not make a good versioning scheme, if one release gets out > late you're automatically considered outdated by users. then help the release team to get more tested releases, otherwise reality is we are releasing out of date install media -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
